so that ProAves could publish its own type description of the antpitta." In 2011, the local government fined Carantón and ProAves (Carantón was employed by them when the specimens were collected) for breach of reporting requirements. ProAves maintain that the collection itself was irregular, but there was no such finding by the local government. Another controversy pertains to determining the valid scientific name for the new species. The G. fenwickorum description was published before the G. urraoensis description (18 May 2010 vs 24 June 2010), thus everything else equal, the Principle of Priority dictates that G. fenwickorum would be the valid name, and G. urraoensis would be considered a junior synonym. However, the description of G. fenwickorum was unconventional in several respects. Instead of clearly designating a single specimen as the Type specimen, in a complex statement they designated both a sample of feathers and the photographed bird as the type specimen. The rest of the description is also ambiguous regarding the nature of the type specimen. This ambiguity, by itself, may be considered problematic since the ICZN Code requires type specimens to be designated unambiguously in modern descriptions (ICZN Art. 16.4). The ambiguity also affects determining whether the type specimen was preserved (if it is the sample of feathers) or not (if it is the bird that was released). To complicate matters, there is evidence that the sample of feathers do not belong to the bird depicted in the article. Because of these problems and other issues, it has been argued that Barrera and Bartels failed to comply with minimum requirements stipulated in the ICZN and thus the name fenwickorum is not available (i.e. not valid). Based on these arguments, the American Ornithologists' Union's South American Checklist Committee has accepted the species as G. urraoensis. (Members include Cadena, who abstained from the vote on the name, and Stiles, who voted for urraoensis.) However, in 2018, the ICZN rejected a petition to suppress the fenwickorum name, as explained in ICZN Opinion 2414, concluding "The available specifc [sic] name Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera & Bartels in Barrera, Bartels & Fundación ProAves de Colombia, 2010 remains valid for the species of antpitta involved. The issue is left open for subsequent workers to make new proposals to the Commission." Finally, the two descriptions also proposed different English names for the bird. Time will tell whether Fundación ProAves' English name, Fenwick's antpitta, or Carantón and